Daily Archives: June 11, 2012

“Tod Mahal” Renamed. Let’s Hope It Does Not Stop There.

Vesper? Here?

The “Tod Mahal”, also known as the USD 57m former Crystal Cathedral, is now going to be renamed as “Christ Cathedral”.

The name change is all fine, and Christ being rather well-known – at least by hearsay – even among secular journalists there is some hope the new name will catch very soon.

The “only” thing to do now is to try to transform what is clearly a monument to Protestant glitz in something at least doing its best to reflect Catholic values. I am, I must say, very curious.

In another parallel news, the Protestant community founded by Mr Schuller will,we are informed, move into a nearby…. former Catholic church, from which the TV broadcasts will take place. Again, I am curious to see how the spectacular scene of the Crystal Cathedral (fitting for a flashy Protestant outfit, but very questionable as a Catholic cathedral; unless your name is Tod, or course) will be replaced by the rather more modest appearance of a conventionally built and much smaller Catholic building. Someway, the idea of the powerful music and the cavernous voice saying “The Hour Of Brick and Mortar In Our Reduced New Premises” does not really catch my imagination.

I still have the hope in a couple of years – when we are rid of Tod – the real estate prices will catch up a bit and the new bishop will be able to sell the thing to other interested parties – like another university; or perhaps it could be converted into an office building – and use the money to build a sensible, traditional, truly brick-and-mortar edifice exuding Catholic spirituality.

First thing, though, is to wait that Bishop Tod takes the exit.


SSPX Can (And Will) Wait

Interesting interview given to the Angelus Press, who put it on youtube (I have it from angelqueen)

The last part (of this Part I) is clearly the most interesting (American spelling as in the original):

Q: Father, there are those who argue that the Society is simply looking for a practical agreement, even contrary to the wishes of Archbishop Lefebvre himself. What would you say to that argument?

A: Well, I think first of all we must make it clear that Bishop Fellay is not really looking for an agreement. Rome is proposing a regularization of the Society. So, the term “agreement” is confusing. It’s not clear. It’s too vague. An agreement would be mainly on doctrine, which is not the case. But a recognition of the Society: that’s what we are talking about today. The Society [has existed] for more than forty years. It was founded, erected, within the Church in the normal way of the Church. And because of the circumstances, because of the crisis of the Church, where we were kind of kicked out – in a way, not that we are outside of the Church, but we are…

– in an irregular situation –

…yes, pushed into an irregular situation – it would be an act of justice in fact to be just reintegrated in a more visible way in the Church. That’s all we are talking about here.

Father Rostand points out to a very important fact: the SSPX can wait because they are not waiting or expecting for anything, nor are they making any “concession”.

The more cynical (but more often right) part of me thinks that this contains a veiled message: if the Pope has postponed the announcement of the reconciliation waiting for some “announcement” of the SSPX leading him to believe they have moved an inch, he will be disappointed and will have to die without an agreement.

The less cynical (and more often wrong) part of me sees this as a simple message of the SSPX to the Holy Father:  we had hoped the decision would come in May but hey: you’re the boss, take your time.

It is not to be denied that Bishop Fellay has played his cards well: at no point has he compromised the integrity of the SSPX; at no point has he given the impression the SSPX would be ready to make a barter, giving something to get something. The simple truth is: the SSPX is not going to give anything, and the Vatican can decide what to do of it.

This is, in a way, the reverse of the situation of 1988. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre knew he would not live for long, and had to act. In 2012, it is Pope Benedict who knows he will not live for long, and is – if he is wise – terrified at the idea of going to His creator with hundreds of appalling episcopal appointments, heresy spreading undisturbed and the SSPX situation still unresolved. The SSPX, on the other hand, can wait for as long as it takes, and will not compromise for the sake of reconciliation.

If there’s something I have learned from the reconciliation discussions it is how absolutely spiffing these SSPX people are.


UN Nazis Wage War On Babies.

Sorry young man, but if you can’t name your parents I am afraid the UN wanted you dead.


In Italy it was once called “la ruota”, “the wheel”. For those of you who don’t know, if was a cradle made in form of a wheel (I think, using a real one) and put outside of monasteries and the like, and whose form was meant to indicate that was the place to put a child the mother could not keep and/or could not afford to declare her own. largely the same old story, I suppose, though cases of legitimately married, very poor families must have been present.

Be it as it may,  the praxis showed some of the characters of past Christian society:

1) the life of the child is the good most worthy of protection, and

2) the charity of the faithful will provide for the unfortunate creatures.

This is, in fact, what happened. In a world which didn’t know the omnipresent nanny-state of modern times, and still believed in charity, the Christians paid for the children. It is another undisputed fact that never in Christian world children had to starve because there was not enough money to shelter and feed them.

Fast forward to the XXI century, a time when Nazism tries to get back from the window after having been bombed out of the door. Modern Nazism calls the killing of a baby “reproductive health”, and puts the baby last instead of first.

One funny aspect of the modern attitude toward children is in this tragically hilarious report – from the “Guardian”, no less – that the United Nations be worried of the resurgence of the practice, because – get ready for this – it deprives the child of the right to know the identity of his father. 

One would only conclude madhouses must be re-opened at once, if one thought these idiots really believe what they say.

The cruel reality is, of course, different. The Nazis at the UN perfectly understand the recovery of the tradition of the “wheel” puts the life of the child and duty to protect him more and more in the foreground. They can’t stand it. I am sorry, little boy, but you will have to be aborted, as we certainly can’t allow you to be born without knowing who your parents are.

We live in times the people of the Middle Ages – who were, actually, generally very good Christians – would have seen as a perfect example of obscurantism, and evil madness.




%d bloggers like this: